THE 


STATE  OF  THE  COUNTRY: 


AN   ARTICLE    REPUBLISHED   FROM 


THE   SOUTHERN  PRESBYTERIAN   REVIEW. 


By    J.    H.    THOMWELL,    D.  D 


COLUMBIA,    S.  C: 

SOUTHERN  GUARDIAN  STEAM-POWER  PRESS. 

1861. 


THE 

WILLIAM  R.  PERKINS 

LIBRARY 

OF 
DUKE  UNIVERSITY 


Rare  Books 


THE 


STATE  OF  THE  COUNTRY: 


AN    ARTICLE    REPUBLISHED    EROM 


THE   SOUTHERN   PRESBYTERIAN   REVIEW. 


By    J.    H.    THORX¥ELL,    D.  D, 


COLUMBIA,    S.  C: 

SOUTHERN  GUARDIAN  STEAM-POWER  PRESS. 

1861. 


STATE    OF    THE    COUNTRY. 


Declaration  of  the  Immediate  Causes  which  Induce  and  Justify 
the  Secession  of  South  Carolina  from  the  Federal  Union; 
and  the  Ordinance  of  Secession.  Printed  by  order  of  the 
Convention.  Charleston :  Evans  &  Cogswell,  Printers 
to  the  Convention  ;  pp.  13.    1860. 

The  Address  of  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  Assembled  in 
Convention,  to  the  People  of  the  Slaveholding  States  of  the 
United  States.  Printed  by  order  of  the  Convention. 
Charleston  :  Evans  &  Cogswell,  Printers  to  the  Conven- 
tion;  pp.  16.     1860. 

Report  on  the  Address  of  a  portion  of  the  Members  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  Georgia.  Printed  by  order  of  the 
Convention.  Charleston :  Evans  &  Cogswell,  Printers 
to  the  Convention,     pp.  6.     1860. 

It  is  now  universally  known  that,  on  the  twentieth  day 
of  last  December,  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  in  Conven- 
tion assembled,  solemnly  annulled  the  ordinance  by  which 
they  became  members  of  the  Federal  Union,  entitled  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  resumed  to  themselves 
the  exercise  of  all  the  powers  which  they  had  delegated  to 
the  Federal  Congress.  South  Carolina  has  now  become  a 
separate  and  independent  State.  She  takes  her  place  as 
an  equal  among  the  other  nations  of  the  earth.  This  is 
certainly  one  of  the  most  grave  and  important  events  of 
modern  times.     It  involves  the  destiny  of  a  continent,  and 


4  State  of  the  Country. 

through  that  continent,  the  fortunes  of  the  human  race. 
As  it  is  a  matter  of  the  utmost  moment  that  the  rest  of  the 
world,  and  especially  that  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
should  understand  the  causes  which  have  brought  about 
this  astounding  result,  we  propose,  in  a  short  article,  and 
in  a  candid  and  dispassionate  spirit,  to  explain  them,  and 
to  make  an  appeal,  both  to  the  slaveholding  and  non-slave- 
holding  States,  touching  their  duty  in  the  new  and  extraor- 
dinary aspect  which  affairs  have  assumed. 

That  there  was  a  cause,  and  an  adequate  cause,  might 
be  presumed  from  the  character  of  the  Convention  which 
passed  the  Ordinance  of  Secession,  and  the  perfect  una- 
nimity with  which  it  was  clone.  That  Convention  was  not 
a  collection  of  demagogues  and  politicians.  It  was  not  a 
conclave  of  defeated  place-hunters,  who  sought  to  avenge 
their  disappointment  by  the  ruin  of  their  country.  It  was 
a  body  of  sober,  grave  and  venerable  men,  selected  from 
every  pursuit  in  life,  and  distinguished,  most  of  them,  in 
their  respective  spheres,  by  every  quality  which  can  com- 
mand confidence  and  respect.  It  embraced  the  wisdom, 
moderation  and  integrity  of  the  bench,  the  learning  and 
prudence  of  the  bar,  and  the  eloquence  and  piety  of  the 
pulpit.  It  contained  retired  planters,  scholars  and  gentle- 
men, who  had  stood  aloof  from  the  turmoil  and  ambition 
of  public  life,  and  were  devoting  an  elegant  leisure — otium 
cum  dignitate — to  the  culture  of  their  minds,  and  to  quiet 
and  unobtrusive  schemes  of  Christian  philanthropy.  There 
were  men  in  that  Convention  who  were  utterly  incapable 
of  low  and  selfish  schemes ;  who,  in  the  calm  serenity  of 
their  judgments,  were  as  unmoved  by  the  waves  of  popular 
passion  and  excitement,  as  the  everlasting  granite  by  the 
billows  that  roll  against  it.  There  were  men  there  who 
would  have  listened  to  no  voice  but  what  they  believed  to 
be  the  voice  of  reason,  and  would  have  bowed  to  no 
authority  but  what  they  believed  to  be  the  authority  of 
God.     There  were  men  there  who  would  not  have  been 


State  of  the  Country.  5 

controlled  by  "uncertain  opinion,"  nor  betrayed  into  "sud- 
den counsels ;"  men  who  could  act  from  nothing,  in  the 
noble  language  of  Milton,  "but  from  mature  wisdom, 
deliberate  virtue,  and  dear  affection  to  the  public  good." 
That  Convention,  in  the  character  of  its  members,  deserves 
every  syllable  of  the  glowing  panegyric  which  Milton  has 
pronounced  upon  the  immortal  Parliament  of  England, 
which  taught  the  nations  of  the  earth  that  resistance  to 
tyrants  is  obedience  to  God.  Were  it  not  invidious,  we 
might  single  out  names,  which,  wherever  they  are  known, 
are  regarded  as  synonymous  with  purity,  probity,  magna- 
nimity and  honor.  It  was  a  noble  body,  and  all  their  pro- 
ceedings were  in  harmony  with  their  high  character.  In 
the  midst  of  intense  agitation  and  excitement,  they  were 
calm,  cool,  collected  and  self-possessed.  They  deliberated 
without  passion,  and  concluded  without  rashness.  They 
sat  with  closed  doors,  that  the  tumult  of  the  populace  might 
not  invade  the  sobriety  of  their  minds.  If  a  stranger  could 
have  passed  from  the  stirring  scenes  with  which  the  street* 
of  Charleston  were  alive,  into  the  calm  and  quiet  sanctuary 
of  this  venerable  council,  he  would  have  been  impressed 
with  the  awe  and  veneration  which  subdued  the  rude 
Gaul,  when  he  first  beheld  in  senatorial  dignity  the  Con- 
script Fathers  of  Rome.  That,  in  such  a  body,  there 
was  not  a  single  voice  against  the  Ordinance  of  Secession, 
that  there  was  not  only  no  dissent,  but  that  the  assent 
was  cordial  and  thorough-going,  is  a  strong  presumption 
that  the  measure  was  justified  by  the  clearest  and  sternest 
necessities  of  justice  and  of  right.  That  such  an  assembly 
should  have  inaugurated  and  completed  a  radical  revo- 
lution in  all  the  external  relations  of  the  State,  in  the 
face  of  acknowledged  dangers,  and  at  the  risk  of  enor- 
mous sacrifices,  and  should  have  done  it  gravely,  soberly, 
dispassionately,  deliberately,  and  yet  have  done  it  without 
cause,  transcends  all  the  measures  of  probability.  What- 
ever else  may  be  said  of  it,  it  certainly  must  be  admitted 
that  this  solemn  act  of  South  Carolina  was  well  considered. 


6  State  of  the  Country. 

In  her  estimate  of  the  magnitude  of  the  danger,  she  has 
been  seconded  by  every  other  slaveholding  State.  "While 
we  are  writing,  the  telegraphic  wires  announce  what  the 
previous  elections  had  prepared  us  to  expect — that  Florida, 
Alabama  and  Mississippi  have  followed  her  example. 
They  also  have  become  separate  and  independent  States. 
Three  other  States  have  taken  the  incipient  steps  for  the 
consummation  of  the  same  result.  And  the  rest  of  the 
slaveholding  States  are  hanging  by  a  siugle  thread  to  the 
Union — the  slender  thread  of  hope — that  guarantees  may 
be  devised  which  shall  yet  secure  to  them  their  rights. 
But  even  they  proclaim,  that  without  such  guarantees,  their 
wrongs  are  intolerable,  and  they  will  not  longer  endure 
them.  Can  any  man  believe  that  the  secession  of  four 
sovereign  States,  under  the  most  solemn  circumstances,  the 
determination  of  others  to  follow  as  soon  as  the  constituted 
authorities  can  be  called  together,  and  the  universal  senti- 
ment of  all,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
been  virtually  repealed,  and  that  every  slaveholding  State 
has  just  ground  for  secession — can  any  man  believe  that 
this  is  a  factitious  condition  of  the  public  mind  of  the 
South,  produced  by  brawling  politicians  and  disappointed 
demagogues,  and  not  the  calm,  deliberate,  profound  utter- 
ance of  a  people  who  feel,  in  their  inmost  souls,  that  they 
have  been  deeply  and  flagrantly  wronged  ?  The  presump- 
tion clearly  is,  that  there  is  something  in  the  attitude  of 
the  Government  which  portends  danger  and  demands  re- 
sistance. There  must  be  a  cause  for  this  intense  and 
pervading  sense  of  injustice  and  of  injury. 

It  has  been  suggested,  by  those  who  know  as  little  of  the 
people  of  the  South  as  they  do  of  the  Constitution  of  their 
country,  that  all  this  ferment  is  nothing  but  the  result  of  a 
mercenary  spirit  on  the  part  of  the  cotton-growing  States, 
fed  by  Utopian  dreams  of  aggrandizement  and  wealth,  to 
be  realized  under  the  auspices  of  free  trade,  in  a  separate 
Confederacy  of  their  own.  It  has  been  gravely  insinuated 
that  they  are  willing  to  sell  their  faith  for  gold — that  they 


State  of  the  Country.  7 

have  only  made  a  pretext  of  recent  events  to  accomplish  a 
foregone  scheme  of  deliberate  treachery  and  fraud.  That 
there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  in  any  thing  these  States 
have  ever  said  or  done  for  this  extraordinary  slander,  it  is, 
of  course,  superfluous  to  add.  The  South  has,  indeed, 
complained  of  the  unequal  administration  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Her  best  and  purest  statesmen  have  openly  avowed 
the  opinion,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  partial  legislation 
of  Congress,  she  has  borne  burdens,  and  experienced  incon- 
veniences, which  have  retarded  her  own  prosperity,  while 
they  have  largely  contributed  to  develope  the  resources  of 
the  IS~orth.  But  grievances  of  this  kind,  unless  greatly 
exaggerated,  never  would  have  led  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union.  They  would  have  been  resisted  within  it,  or 
patiently  borne  until  they  could  be  lawfully  redressed.  So 
far  from  contending  for  an  arbitrary  right  to  dissolve  the 
Union,  or  the  right  to  dissolve  it  on  merely  technical 
grounds,  the  South  sets  so  high  a  value  on  good  faith,  that 
she  would  never  have  dissolved  it  for  slight  and  temporary 
wrongs,  even  though  they  might  involve  such  a  violation, 
on  the  part  of  her  confederates,  of  the  terms  of  the 
compact,  as  released  her  from  any  further  obligation  of 
honor.  It  is,  therefore,  preposterous  to  say,  that  any 
dreams,  however  dazzling,  of  ambition  and  avarice,  could 
have  induced  her  to  disregard  her  solemn  engagements  to 
her  sister  States,  while  they  were  faithfully  fulfilling  the 
conditions  of  the  contract.  We  know  the  people  of  the 
South ;  and  we  can  confidently  affirm,  that  if  they  had  been 
assured  that  all  these  golden  visions  could  have  been  com- 
pletely realized  by  setting  up  for  themselves,  as  long  as  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  continued  to  be  sincerely 
observed,  they  would  have  spurned  the  temptation  to  pur- 
chase national  greatness  by  perfidy.  They  would  have 
preferred  poverty,  with  honor,  to  the  gain  of  the  whole 
world  by  the  loss  of  their  integrity. 

"When  it  was  perceived  that  the  tendency  of  events  was 
inevitably  driving  the  South  to  disunion,  a  condition  from 


8  State  of  the  Country. 

which  she  at  first  recoiled  with  horror,  then  she  began  to 
cast  about  for  considerations  to  reconcile  her  to  her  destiny. 
Then,  for  the  first  time,  was  it  maintained,  that,  instead  of 
being  a  loser,  she  might  be  a  gainer  by  the  measure  which 
the  course  of  the  Government  was  forcing  upon  her.  It 
was  alleged  that  good  would  spring  from  evil ;  that  the 
prospect  of  independence  was  brighter  and  more  cheering 
than  her  present  condition — that  she  had  much  to  antici- 
pate, and  little  to  dread,  from  the  contemplated  change. 
But  these  considerations  were  not  invented  to  justify  seces- 
sion— they  were  only  adduced  as  motives  to  reconcile  the 
mind  to  its  necessity.  Apart  from  that  necessity,  they 
would  have  had  as  little  weight  in  determining  public  opin- 
ion, as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance.  We  do  not  believe, 
when  the  present  controversy  began,  that  the  advocates  of 
what  is  called  disunion  per  se,  men  who  preferred  a  Southern 
Confederacy  upon  the  grounds  of  its  intrinsic  superiority 
to  the  Constitutional  Union  of  the  United  States,  could 
have  mustered  a  corporal's  guard.  The  people  of  the 
South  were  loyal  to  the  country,  and  if  the  country  had 
been  true  to  them,  they  would  have  been  as  ready  to-day 
to  defend  its  honor  with  their  fortunes  and  their  blood,  as 
when  they  raised  its  triumphant  flag  upon  the  walls  of 
Mexico. 

It  has  also  been  asserted,  as  a  ground  of  dissatisfaction 
with  the  present  Government,  and  of  desire  to  organize  a 
separate  Government  of  their  own,  that  the  cotton-growing 
States  are  intent  upon  reopening,  as  a  means  of  fulfilling 
their  magnificent  visions  of  wealth,  the  African  slave-trade. 
The  agitation  of  this  subject  at  the  South  has  been  grievously 
misunderstood.  One  extreme  generates  another.  The  vio- 
lence of  Northern  abolitionists  gave  rise  to  a  small  party 
among  ourselves,  who  were  determined  not  to  be  outdone 
in  extravagance.  They  wished  to  show  that  they  could 
give  a  Eowland  for  an  Oliver.  Had  abolitionists  never 
denounced  the  domestic  trade  as  plunder  and  robbery,  not  a 
whisper  would  ever  have  been  breathed  about  disturbing 


State  of  the  Country.  9 

the  peace  of  Africa.  The  men  who  were  loudest  in  their 
denunciations  of  the  Government  had,  with  very  few  excep- 
tions, no  more  desire  to  have  the  trade  reopened  than  the 
rest  of  their  countrymen;  but  they  delighted  in  teasing 
their  enemies.  They  took  special  satisfaction  in  providing 
hard  nuts  for  abolitionists  to  crack.  There  were  others, 
not  at  all  in  favor  of  the  trade,  who  looked  upon  the  law 
as  unconstitutional  which  declared  it  to  be  piracy.  But 
the  great  mass  of  the  Southern  people  were  content  with 
the  law  as  it  stood.  They  were  and  are  opposed  to  the 
trade — not  because  the  traffic  in  slaves  is  immoral — that 
not  a  man  among  us  believes — but  because  the  traffic  with 
Africa  is  not  a  traffic  in  slaves.  It  is  a  system  of  kidnapping 
and  man-stealing,  which  is  as  abhorrent  to  the  South  as  it 
is  to  the  North  ;  and  we  venture  confidently  to  predict,  that 
should  a  Southern  Confederacy  be  formed,  the  African 
slave-trade  is  much  more  likely  to  be  reopened  by  the  old 
Government  than  the  new.  The  conscience  of  the  North 
will  be  less  tender  when  it  has  no  Southern  sins  to  bewail, 
and  idle  ships  will  naturally  look  to  the  Government  to  help 
them  in  finding  employment. 

The  real  cause  of  the  intense  excitement  of  the  South,  is 
not  vain  dreams  of  national  glory  in  a  separate  confederacy, 
nor  the  love  of  the  filthy  lucre  of  the  African  slave-trade  ; 
it  is  the  profound  conviction  that  the  Constitution,  in  its 
relations  to  slavery,  has  been  virtually  repealed ;  that  the 
Government  has  assumed  a  new  and  dangerous  attitude 
upon  this  subject;  that  we  have,  in  short,  new  terms  of 
union  submitted  to  our  acceptance  or  rejection.  Here  lies 
the  evil.  The  election  of  Lincoln,  when  properly  interpre- 
ted, is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  proposition  to  the 
South  to  consent  to  a  Government,  fundamentally  different 
upon  the  question  of  slavery,  from  that  which  our  fathers 
established.  If  this  point  can  be  made  out,  secession  be- 
comes not  only  a  right,  but  a  bounden  duty.  Morally,  it  is 
only  the  abrogation  of  the  forms  of  a  contract,  when  its 
2 


10  State  of  the   Country. 

essential  conditions  have  been  abolished.  Politically,  it  is 
a  measure  indispensable  to  the  safety,  if  not  to  the  very 
existence,  of  the  South.  It  is  needless  to  say  that,  in  this 
issue,  the  personal  character  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is  not  at  all 
involved.  There  are  no  objections  to  him  as  a  man,  or  as 
a  citizen  of  the  North.  He  is  probably  entitled,  in  the 
private  relations  of  life,  to  all  the  commendations  which  his 
friends  have  bestowed  upon  him.  We,  at  least,  would  be 
the  last  to  detract  from  his  personal  worth.  The  issue  has* 
respect,  not  to  the  man,  but  to  the  principles  upon  which 
he  is  pledged  to  administer  the  Government,  and  which, 
we  are  significantly  informed,  are  to  be  impressed  upon  it 
in  all  time  to  come.  His  election  seals  the  triumph  of 
those  principles,  and  that  triumph  seals  the  subversion  of 
the  Constitution,  in  relation  to  a  matter  of  paramount 
interest  to  the  South. 

This  we  shall  proceed  to  show,  by  showing,  first,  the 
Constitutional  attitude  of  the  Government  towards  slavery, 
and  then  the  attitude  which,  after  the  inauguration  of  Mr. 
Lincoln,  it  is  to  assume  and  maintain  for  ever : 

I.  What,  now,  is  its  Constitutional  attitude  ?  "We  affirm 
it  to  be  one  of  absolute  indifference  or  neutrality,  with 
respect  to  all  questions  connected  with  the  moral  and 
political  aspects  of  the  subject.  In  the  eye  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, slaveholding  and  non-slaveholdiug  stand  upon  a  foot- 
ing of  perfect  equality.  The  slaveholding  State  and  the 
slaveholding  citizen  are  the  same  to  it  as  the  non-slave- 
holding.  It  protects  both ;  it  espouses  the  peculiarities  of 
neither.  It  does  not  allow  the  North  to  say  to  the  South, 
Your  institutions  are  inferior  to  ours,  and  should  be 
changed  ;  neither  does  it  allow  the  South  to  say  to  the 
North,  You  must  accommodate  yourselves  to  us.  It  says 
to  both,  Enjoy  your  own  opinions  upon  your  own  soil,  so 
that  you  do  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  each  other.  To 
me  there  is  no  difference  betwixt  you.  Formed  by  parties 
whose  divisive  principle  was  this  very  subject  of  slavery,  it 


State  of  the  Country.  11 

stands  to  reason,  that  the  Constitution,  without  self-con- 
demnation on  the  part  of  one  or  the  other,  could  not  have 
been  made  the  patron  of  either.  From  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  its  position  must  be  one  of  complete  impartiality. 
This  is  what  the  South  means  by  equality  in  the  Union, 
that  the  General  Government  shall  make  no  difference 
betwixt  its  institutions  and  those  of  the  Xorth ;  that  slave- 
holding  shall  be  as  good  to  it  as  non-slaveholding.  In 
other  words,  the  Government  is  the  organ  of  neither  party, 
but  the  common  agent  of  both ;  and,  as  their  common  agent, 
has  no  right  to  pronounce  an  opinion  as  to  the  merits  of 
their  respective  peculiarities.  This,  we  contend,  is  the 
attitude  fixed  by  the  Constitution.  The  Government  is 
neither  pro  nor  anti  slavery.  It  is  simply  neutral.  Had  it 
assumed  any  other  attitude  upon  this  subject,  it  never 
would  have  been  accepted  by  the  slaveholding  States. 
When  Mr.  Pinckney  could  rise  up  in  the  Convention  and 
declare,  that  "  if  slavery  be  wrong,  it  is  justified  by  the 
example  of  all  the  world;"  when  he  could  boldly  appeal 
to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  ancient  and  modern  times — 
to  Greece  and  Eome,  to  France,  Holland,  and  England,  in 
vindication  of  its  righteousness,  it  is  not  to  be  presumed 
that  he  ever  would  have  joined  in  the  construction  of  a 
Government  which  was  authorized  to  pronounce  and  treat 
it  as  an  evil !  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  the  slavehold- 
ing States,  unless  they  seriously  aimed  at  the  ultimate  ex- 
tinction of  slavery,  would  have  entered  into  an  alliance 
which  was  confessedly  to  be  turned  against  them.  That 
they  did  not  aim  at  the  extinction  of  slavery,  is  clear  from 
the  pertinacity  with  which  some  of  them  clung  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  African  slave-trade,  until  foreign  supplies 
should  be  no  longer  demanded.  When  Georgia  and  South 
Carolina  made  it  a  sine  qua  non  for  entering  the  Union,  that 
this  traffic  should  be  kept  open  for  a  season,  to  say  that 
these  States  meditated  the  abolition  of  slavery,  is  grossly 
paradoxical.     It  is  remarkable,  too,  that  the  time  fixed  for 


12  State  of  the  Country. 

the  prohibition  of  this  traffic,  was  a  time  within  which  the 
Representatives  of  those  States  were  persuaded  that  the 
States  themselves,  if  the  question  were  left  to  them,  would 
prohibit  it.  These 'States  conceded  to  the  Government  the 
right  to  do,  as  their  agent,  only  what  they  themselves 
would  do,  as  sovereign  communities,  under  the  same  cir- 
cumstances. No  presumption,  therefore,  of  an  attitude,  on 
the  part  of  the  Constitution,  hostile  to  slavery,  can  be  de- 
duced from  the  clause  touching  the  African  slave-trade. 
On  the  contrary,  the  presumption  is,  that,  as  the  trade  was 
kept  open  for  a  while — kept  open,  in  fact,  as  long  as  the 
African  supply  was  needed — the  slaveholding  States  never 
meant  to  abolish  the  institution,  and  never  could  have  con- 
sented to  set  the  face  of  the  Government  against  it.  No 
doubt,  the  fathers  of  the  Republic  were,  many  of  them,  not 
all,  opposed  to  slavery.  But  they  had  to  frame  a  Govern- 
ment which  should  represent,  not  their  personal  and 
private  opinions,  but  the  interests  of  sovereign  States. 
They  had  to  adjust  it  to  the  institutions  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia,  as  well  as  those  of  New  England.  And  they 
had  the  grace  given  them  to  impress  upon  it  the  only 
attitude  which  could  conciliate  and  harmonize  all  parties — 
the  attitude  of  perfect  indifference. 

This,  at  the  same  time,  is  the  attitude  of  justice.  We 
of  the  South  have  the  same  right  to  our  opinions  as  the 
people  of  the  North.  They  appear  as  true  to  us  as  theirs 
appear  to  them.  "We  are  as  honest  and  sincere  in  forming 
and  maintaining  them.  We  unite  to  form  a  government. 
Upon  what  principle  shall  it  be  formed  ?  Is  it  to  be  asked 
of  us  to  renounce  doctrines  which  we  believe  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  have  the  sanction  of 
the  oracles  of  God?  Must  we  give  up  what  we  con- 
scientiously believe  to  be  the  truth  ?  The  thing  is  absurd. 
The  Government,  in  justice,  can  only  say  to  both  parties  : 
I  will  protect  you  both,  I  will  be  the  advocate  of  neither. 


State  of  the  Country.  13 

In  order  to  exempt  slavery  from,  the  operation  of  this 
plain  principle  of  justice,  it  has  been  contended  that  the 
right  of  property  in  slaves  is  the  creature  of  positive  statute, 
and,  consequently,  of  force  only  within  the  limits  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  law ;  that  it  is  a  right  not  recognized  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and,  therefore,  not 
to  be  protected  where  Congress  is  the  local  legislature. 
These  two  propositions  contain  every  thing  that  has  any 
show  of  reason  for  the  extraordinary  revolution  which  the 
recent  election  has  consummated  in  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 

They  arc  both  gratuitous: 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  slavery  has  never,  in  any  country, 
so  far  as  we  know,  arisen  under  the  operation  of  statute 
law.  It  is  not  a  municipal  institution — it  is  not  the  arbi- 
trary creature  of  the  State,  it  has  not  sprung  from  the  mere 
force  of  legislation.  Law  defines,  modifies  and  regulates 
it,  as  it  does  every  other  species  of  property,  but  law  never 
created  it.  The  law  found  it  in  existence,  and  being  in 
existence,  the  law  subjects  it  to  fixed  rules.  On  the  con- 
trary, what  is  local  and  municipal,  is  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
The  States  that  are  now  non-slaveholding,  have  been  made 
so  by  positive  statute.  Slavery  exists,  of  course,  in  every 
nation  in  which  it  is  not  prohibited.  It  arose,  in  the  pro- 
gress of  human  events,  from  the  operation  of  moral  causes; 
it  has  been  grounded  by  philosophers  in  moral  maxims,  it 
it  has  always  been  held  to  be  moral  by  the  vast  majority 
of  the  race.  £so  age  has  been  without  it.  From  the jfirst 
dawn  of  authentic  history,  until  the  present  period,  it  has 
come  down  to  us  through  all  the  course  of  ages.  We  find 
it  among  nomadic  tribes,  barbarian  hordes,  and  civilized 
States.  Wherever  communities  have  been  organized,  and 
any  rights  of  property  have  been  recognized  at  all,  there 
slavery  is  seen.  If,  therefore,  there  be  any  property  which 
can  be  said  to  be  founded  in  the  common  consent  of  the 
human  race,  it  is  the  property  in  slaves.     If  there  be  any 


14  State  of  the  Country. 

property  that  can  be  called  natural,  in  the  sense  that  it  spon- 
taneously springs  up  in  the  history  of  the  species,  it  is  the 
property  in  slaves.  If  there  be  any  property  which  is 
founded  inprinciples  of  universal  operation,  it  is  the  property 
in  slaves.  To  say  of  an  institution,  whose  history  is  thus 
the  history  of  man,  which  has  always  and  every  where 
existed,  that  it  is  a  local  and  municipal  relation,  is  of  "  all 
absurdities  the  motliest,  the  merest  word  that  ever  fooled 
the  ear  from  out  the  schoolman's  jargon."  Mankind  may 
have  been  wrong — that  is  not  the  question.  The  point  is, 
whether  the  law  made  slavery — whether  it  is  the  police  reg- 
ulation of  limited  localities,  or  whether  it  is  a. property 
founded  in  natural  causes,  and  causes  of  universal  opera- 
tion. We  say  nothing  as  to  the  moral  character  of  the 
causes.  "We  insist  only  upon  the  fact  that  slavery  is  rooted 
in  a  common  law,  wider  and  more  pervading  than  the  com- 
mon law  of  England — the  universal  custom  op  mankind. 
If,  therefore,  slavery  is  not  municipal,  but  natural,  if  it  is 
abolition  which  is  municipal  and  local,  then,  upon  the 
avowed  doctrines  of  our  opponents,  two  things  follow : 
1st.  That  slavery  goes  of  right,  and  as  a  matter  of  course, 
into  every  territory  from  which  it  is  not  excluded  by  posi- 
tive statute  ;  and,  2d.  That  Congress  is  competent  to  forbid 
the  Northern  States  from  impressing  their  local  peculiarity 
of  non-slaveholding  upon  the  common  soil  of  the  Union. 
If  the  Republican  argument  is  good  for  any  thing,  it  goes 
the  whole  length  of  excluding  for  ever  any  additional  non- 
slaveholding  States  from  the  Union.  What  would  they 
think,  if  the  South  had  taken  any  such  extravagant  ground 
as  this  ?  What  would  they  have  done,  if  the  South  had 
taken  advantage  of  a  numerical  majority,  to  legislate  them 
and  their  institutions  for  ever  out  of  the  common  territory  ? 
Would  they  have  submitted?  Would  they  have  glorified 
the  Union,  and  yielded  to  the  triumph  of  slavery  ?  We 
know  that  they  would  not.  They  would  have  scorned  the 
crotchet  about  municipal  and  local  laws  which  divested  them 


State  of  the  Country.  15 

of  their  dearest  rights.  Let  them  give  the  same  measure 
to  others  which  they  expect  from  others.  It  is  a  noble 
maxim,  commended  by  high  authority — do  as  you  would 
be  done  by. 

The  South  has  neither  asked  for,  nor  does  she  desire, 
any  exclusive  benefits.  All  she  demands  is,  that  as  South, 
as  slaveholding,  she  shall  be  put  upon  the  same  footing  with 
the  Xorth,  as  non-slaveholcling — that  the  Government  shall 
not  undertake  to  say,  one  kind  of  States  is  better  than  the 
other — that  it  shall  have  no  preference  as  to  the  character, 
in  this  respect,  of  any  future  States  to  be  added  to  the 
Union.  Xon-slaveholding  may  be  superior  to  slaveholding, 
but  it  is  not  the  place  of  the  Government  to  say  so ;  much 
less  to  assume  the  right  of  saying  so  upon  a  principle  which, 
properly  applied,  requires  it  to  say  the  very  reverse. 

There  is  another  sense  in  which  municipal  is  opposed  to 
international,  and  in  this  sense,  slavery  is  said  to  be  muni- 
cipal, because  there  is  no  obligation,  by  the  law  of  nations, 
on  the  part  of  States  in  which  slavery  is  prohibited,  to 
respect  within  the  limits  of  their  own  territory  the  rights 
of  the  foreign  slaveholder.  This  is  the  doctrine  laid  down 
by  Judge  Story.  Xo  nation  is  bound  to  accord  to  a  stranger 
a  right  of  property  which  it  refuses  to  its  own  subjects. 
We  can  not,  therefore,  demand  from  the  Governments  of 
France  or  England,  or  any  other  foreign  power,  whose 
policy  and  interests  are  opposed  to  slavery,  the  restoration 
of  our  fugitives  from  bondage.  We  are  willing  to  concede, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  principle  in  question  is 
an  admitted  principle  of  international  law,  though  we  are 
quite  persuaded  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  whole  current  of 
Continental  authorities,  and  is  intensely  English.  We  doubt 
whether,  even  in  England,  it  can  be  traced  beyond  the 
famous  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield,  in  the  case  of  Somer- 
set. But  let  us  admit  the  principle.  What  then  ?  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  expressly  provided 
that  this  principle  shall  not  apply  within  the  limits  of  Fed- 


16  State  of  the  Country. 

eral  jurisdiction.  With  reference  to  this  country,  it  has 
abrogated  the  law ;  every  State  is  bound  to  respect  the  right 
of  the  Southern  master  to  his  slave.  The  Constitution  covers 
the  whole  territory  of  the  Union,  and  throughout  that 
territory  has  taken  slavery,  under  the  protection  of  law. 
However  foreign  nations  may  treat  our  fugitive  slaves,  the 
States  of  this  Confederacy  are  bound  to  treat  them 
as  property,  and  to  give  them  back  to  their  lawful  owners. 
How  idle,  therefore,  to  plead  a  principle  of  international 
law,  which,  in  reference  to  the  relations  of  the  States  of 
this  Union,  is  formally  abolished !  Slavery  is  clearly  a 
part  of  the  municipal  law  of  the  United  States ;  and  the 
whole  argument  from  the  local  character  of  the  institution, 
falls  to  the  ground.  Slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding 
are  both  equally  sectional,  and  both  equally  national. 

(2.)  As  to  the  allegation  that  the  Constitution  no  where 
recognizes  the  right  of  property  in  slaves,  that  is  equally 
unfounded.  We  shall  say  nothing  here  of  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  though  that,  one  would  think,  is  enti- 
tled to  some  consideration.  We  shall  appeal  to  the  Consti- 
tution itself,  and  if  there  is  force  in  logic,  we  shall  be  able 
to  make  it  appear  that  the  right  is  not  only  recognized,  but 
recognized  with  a  philosophical  accuracy  and  precision  that 
seize  only  on  the  essential,  and  omit  the  variable  and  acci- 
dental. The  subject,  in  the  language  of  the  Constitution, 
is  transferred  from  the  technicalities  of  law  to  the  higher 
sphere  of  abstract  and  speculative  morality.  Morally  con- 
sidered, to  what  class  does  the  slave  belong  ?  To  the  class 
of  persons  held  to  service.  The  two  ideas  that  he  is  a  per- 
son, and  as  a  person,  held  to  service,  constitute  the  generic 
conception  of  slavery.  How  is  his  obligation  to  service 
fundamentally  differenced  from  that  of  other  laborers?  By 
this,  as  one  essential  circumstance,  that  it  is  independent  of 
the  formalities  of  contract.  Add  the  circumstance  that  it 
is  for  life,  and  you  have  a  complete  conception  of  the  thing. 
You  have  the  very  definition,  almost  in  his  own  words, 


State  of  the  Country.  17 

which  a  celebrated  English  philosopher  gives  of  slavery: 
"I  define  slavery,"  says  Dr.  Paley,  "  to  be  an  obligation  to 
labor  for  the  benefit  of  the  master,  without  the  contract  or 
consent  of  the  servant."* 

Now,  is  such  an  obligation  recognized  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States?  Are  there  persons  spoken  of  in  it, 
who  are  held  to  service  by  a  claim  so  sacred  that  the  Govern- 
ment allows  them,  however  anxious  they  may  be  to  do  so,  to 
dissolve  it  neither  by  stratagem  nor  force  ?  If  they  run  away, 
they  must  be  remanded  to  those  who  are  entitled  to  their 
labor,  even  if  they  escape  to  a  territory  whose  local  laws 
would  otherwise  protect  them.  If  they  appeal  to  force, 
the  whole  power  of  the  Union  may  be  brought  to  crush 
them.  Can  any  man  say  that  the  Constitution  does  not 
here  recognize  a  right  to  the  labor  and  service  of  men,  of 
persons,  which  springs  from  no  stipulations  of  their  own, 
is  entirely  independent  of  their  own  consent,  and  which 
can  never  be  annulled  by  any  efforts,  whether  clandestine 
or  open,  on  their  part?  This  is  slavery — it  is  the  very 
essence  and  core  of  the  institution.  That  upon  which  the 
right  of  property  terminates  in  the  slave,  is  his  service  or 
labor.  It  is  not  his  soul,  not  his  person,  not  his  moral  and 
intellectual  nature — it  is  his  labor.  This  is  the  thing  which 
is  bought  and  sold  in  the  market,  and  it  is  in  consequence 
of  the  right  to  regulate,  control  and  direct  this,  that  the 
person  comes  under  an  obligation  to  obey.  The  ideas  of  a 
right  on  one  side,  and  duty  on  the  other,  show  that  the 
slave,  in  this  relation,  is  as  truly  a  person  as  his  master. 
The  Constitution,  therefore,  does  recognize  and  protect 
slavery,  in  every  moral  and  ethical  feature  of  it. .  The  thing 
which,  under  that  name,  has  commanded  the  approbation 
of  mankind,  is  the  very  thing,  among  others  analogous  to 
it,  included  in  the  third  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the 
fourth  chapter  of  the   Constitution.     We  see  no  way  of 

*  floral  Philos.  III.,  c.  3. 


18  State  of  the   Country, 

getting  round  this  argument.  It  is  idle  to  say  that  slaves 
are  not  referred  to — it  is  equally  idle  to  say  that  the  right 
to  their  labor  is  not  respected  and  guarded.  Let  this  right 
be  acknowledged  in  the  territories,  and  we  are  not  disposed 
to  wring  changes  upon  words.  Let  the  Government  permit 
the  South  to  carry  her  persons  held  to  service,  without  their 
consent,  into  the  territories,  and  let  the  right  to  their  labor 
be  protected,  and  there  would  be  no  quarrel  about  slavery. 
It  is  unworthy  of  statesmen,  in  a  matter  of  this  sort,  to  quib- 
ble about  legaHechnicalities.  That  the  law  of  slaveholding 
States  classes  slaves  among  chattels,  and  speaks  of  them 
as  marketable  commodities,  does  not  imply  that,  morally 
and  ethically,  they  are  not  persons,  nor  that  the  property 
is  in  them,  rather  than  in  their  toil.  These  same  laws  treat 
them  in  other  respects  as  persons,  and  speak  of  their  ser- 
vice as  obedience  or  duty.  The  meaning  of  chattel  is  rela- 
tive, and  is  to  be  restricted  to  the  relation  which  it  implies. 
"We  are  happy  to  find  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  fully  confirmed  the  interpretation  which 
we  have  given  to  this  clause  of  the  Constitution.  In  the 
case  of  Prigg  vs.  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,*  it 
was  asserted  by  every  Judge  upon  the  Bench,  that  the  de- 
sign of  the  provision  was  "to  secure  to  the  citizens  of  the 
slaveholding  States  the  complete  right  and  title  of  owner- 
ship in  their  slaves,  as  property,  in  every  State  in  the  Union 
into  which  they  might  escape  from  the  State  where  they 
were  held  in  servitude."  These  are  the  very  words  of 
Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 
He  went  on  to  add :  "The  full  recognition  of  this  right  and 
title  was  indispensable  to  the  security  of  this  species  of 
property  in  all  the  slaveholding  States  ;  and,  indeed,  was 
so  vital  to  the  preservation  of  the  domestic  interests  and 
institutions  that  it  can  not  be  doubted  that  it  constituted  a 
fundamental  article,  without  the  adoption  of  which  the 
Union  could  not  have  been  formed."  f    Again :  "We  have 

*  16  Peters,  p.  539,  et  seq.  f  lb.,  p.  611. 


State  of  the  Country.  19 

said  that  the  clause  contains  a  positive  and  unqualified  recog- 
nition of  the  right  of  the  owner  in  the  slave."  *  Chief  Jus- 
tice Taney  held:  that,  "by  the  national  compact,  this  right 
of  property  is  recognized  as  an  existing  right  in  every  State 
of  the  Union."f  Judge  Thompson  said:  the  Constitution 
"affirms,  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  the  right  of  the 
master  to  the  service  of  his  slave,  according  to  the  laws  of 
the  State  under  which  he  is  so  held."  %  Judge  "Wayne 
affirmed  that  all  the  Judges  concurred  "in  the  declaration 
that  the  provision  in  the  Constitution  wa§  a  compromise 
between  the  slaveholding  and  the  non-slaveholding  States, 
to  secure  to  the  former  fugitive  slaves  as  property."  § 
"The  paramount  authority  of  this  clause  in  the  Con- 
stitution," says  Judge  Daniel,  "  to  guarantee  to  the  owner 
the  right  of  property  in  his  slave,  and  the  absolute  nullity 
of  any  State  power,  directly  or  indirectly,  openly  or  covertly, 
aimed  to  impair  that  right,  or  to  obstruct  its  enjoyment,  I 
admit,  nay,  insist  upon,  to  the  fullest  extent."  || 

If  now,  the  Constitution  recognizes  slaves  as  property, 
that  is,  as  persons  to  whose  labor  and  service  the  master 
has  a  right,  then,  upon  what  principle  shall  Congress 
undertake  to  abolish  this  right  upon  a  territory,  of  which  it 
is  the  local  Legislature  ?  It  will  not  permit  the  slave  to 
cancel  it,  because  the  service  is  due.  Upon  what  ground 
can  itself  interpose  between  a  man  and  his  dues  ?  Con- 
gress is  as  much  the  agent  of  the  slaveholding  as  it  is  of 
the  non-slaveholding  States ;  and,  as  equally  bound  to  pro- 
tect both,  and  to  hold  the  scales  of  justice  even  between 
them,  it  must  guard  the  property  of  the  one  with  the  same 
care  with  which  it  guards  the  property  of  the  other. 

We  have  now  refuted  the  postulates  upon  which  the 
recent  revolution  in  the  Government  is  attempted  to  be 
justified.  We  have  shown  that  slavery  is  not  the  creature 
of  local  and  municipal  law,  and  that  the  Constitution  dis- 
tinctly recognizes  the  right  of  the  master  to  the  labor  or 

*  16  Peters,  613.     f  lb.,  p.  628.     J  lb.,  p.  634.      \  lb.,  p.  637.     ||  76., p.  165 


20  State  of  the  Country. 

service  of  the  slave  ;  that  is,  the  right  of  property  in  slaves. 
There  is  no  conceivable  pretext,  then,  for  saying  that  the 
Government  should  resist  the  circulation  of  this  kind  of 
property,  more  than  any  other.  That  question  it  must 
leave  to  the  providence  of  God,  and  to  the  natural  and 
moral  laws  by  which  its  solution  is  conditioned.  All  that 
the  Government  can  do,  is  to  give  fair  play  to  both  parties, 
the  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding  States ;  protect  the 
rights  of  both  on  their  common  soil,  and  as  soon  as  a 
sovereign  State  emerges,  to  which  the  soil  is  henceforward 
to  belong,  remit  the  matter  to  its  absolute  discretion.  This 
is  justice — this  is  the  impartiality  which  becomes  the  agent 
of  a  great  people,  divided  by  two  such  great  interests. 

That  the  rights  of  the  South,  as  slaveholding — for  it  is  in 
that  relation  only  that  she  is  politically  a  different  section 
from  the  North — and  the  rights  of  the  North,  as  non-slave- 
holding,  are  absolutely  equal,  is  so  plain  a  proposition,  that 
one  wonders  at  the  pertinacity  with  which  it  has  been 
denied.  Here  let  us  expose  a  sophism  whose  only  force 
consists  in  a  play  upon  words.  It  is  alleged  that  the 
equality  of  the  sections  is  not  disturbed  by  the  exclusion 
of  slavery  from  the  territories,  because  the  Southern  man 
may  take  with  him  all  that  the  Northern  man  can  take. 
The  plain  English  of  which  is  this :  if  the  Southern  man 
will  consent  to  become  as  a  Northern  man,  and  renounce 
what  distinguishes  him  as  a  Southern  man,  he  may  go  into 
the  territories.  But  if  he  insists  upon  remaining  a  Southern 
man,  he  must  stay  at  home.  The  geography  is  only  an 
accident  in  this  matter.  The  Southern  man,  politically,  is 
the  slaveholder ;  the  Northern  man,  politically,  is  the  non- 
slaveholder.  The  rights  of  the  South  are  the  rights  of  the 
South  as  slaveholding ;  the  rights  of  the  North  are  the 
rights  of  the  North  as  non-slaveholding.  This  is  what 
makes  the  real  difference  betwixt  the  two  sections.  To 
exclude  slaveholding  is,  therefore,  to  exclude  the  South. 
By  the  free-soil  doctrine,  therefore,  she,  as  South,  is  utterly 
debarred  from  every  foot  of  the  soil,  which  belongs,  of 


State  of  the   Country.  21 

right,  as  much  to  her  as  to  her  Northern  confederates. 
The  Constitution  is  made  to  treat  her  institutions  as  if  they 
were  a  scandal  and  reproach.  It  becomes  the  patron  of 
the  i^orth,  and  an  enemy,  instead  of  a  protector,  to  her. 

That  this  is  the  attitude  which  the  Government  is  hence- 
forward to  assume,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  show  : 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  let  it  he  distinctlj  understood,  that 
we  do  not  charge  the  great  body  of  the  Xorthern  people, 
who  have  accomplished  the  recent  revolution,  with  being 
abolitionists,  in  the  strict  and  technical  sense.  TTe  are 
willing  to  concede  that  they  have  no  design,  for  the  present, 
to  interfere  directly  with  slavery  in  the  slaveholding  States. 
"We  shall  give  them  credit  for  an  honest  purpose,  under 
Mr.  Lincoln's  administration,  to  execute,  as  far  as  the 
hostility  of  the  States  will  let  them,  the  provisions  of  the 
fugitive  slave  law.  All  this  may  be  admitted,  but  it  does 
not  affect  the  real  issue,  nor  mitigate  the  real  danger. 
We  know  that  there  are  various  types  of  opinion  at  the 
]STorth  with  reference  to  the  moral  aspects  of  slavery,  and 
we  have  never  apprehended  that,  under  the  Constitution 
as  it  stands,  there  was  any  likelihood  of  an  attempt  to 
interfere,  by  legislation,  with  our  property  on  our  own  soil. 

(2.)  But,  in  the  second  place,  it  must  likewise  be  con- 
ceded that  the  general,  almost  the  universal,  attitude  of 
the  Xorthern  mind  is  one  of  hostility  to  slavery.  Those 
who  are  not  prepared  to  condemn  it  as  a  sin,  nor  to  meddle 
with  it  where  it  is  legally  maintained,  are  yet  opposed  to 
it,  as  a  natural  and  political  evil,  which  every  good  man 
should  desire  to  see  extinguished.  They  all  regard  it  as  a 
calamity,  an  affliction,  a  misfortune.  They  regard  it  as  an 
element  of  weakness,  and  as  a  draw-back  upon  the  pros- 
perity and  glory  of  the  country.  They  pity  the  South,  as 
caught  in  the  folds  of  a  serpent,  which  is  gradually  squeez- 
ing out  her  life.  And,  even  when  they  defend  us  from  the 
reproach  of  sin  in  sustaining  the  relation,  they  make  so 
many  distinctions  between  the  abstract  notion  of  slavery 


22  State  of  the   Country. 

and  the  system  of  our  own  laws,  that  their  defence  would 
hardly  avail  to  save  us,  if  there  were  any  power  competent 
to  hang  and  quarter  us.  We  are  sure  that  we  do  not  mis- 
represent the  general  tone  of  .Northern  sentiment.  It  is 
one  of  hostility  to  slavery — it  is  one  which,  while  it  might 
not  be  willing  to  break  faith,  under  the  present  administra- 
tion, with  respect  to  the  express  injunctions  of  the  Consti- 
tion,  is  utterly  and  absolutely  opposed  to  any  further  exten- 
sion of  the  system. 

(3.)  In  the  third  place,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood  that 
we  have  no  complaint  to  make  of  the  opinions  of  the 
North,  considered  simply  as  their  opinions.  They  have  a 
right,  so  far  as  human  authority  is  concerned,  to  think  as 
they  please.  The  South  has  never  asked  them  to  approve 
of  slavery,  or  to  change  their  own  institutions  and  to  intro- 
duce it  among  themselves.  The  South  has  been  willing  to 
accord  to  them  the  most  perfect  and  unrestricted  right  of 
private  judgment. 

(4.)  But,  in  the  fourth  place,  what  we  do  complain  of,  and 
what  we  have  a  right  to  complain  of,  is  that  they  should  not 
be  content  with  thinking  their  own  thoughts  themselves, 
but  should  undertake  to  make  the  Government  think  them 
likewise.  We  of  the  South  have,  also,  certain  thoughts 
concerning  slavery,  and  we  can  not  understand  upon  what 
principle  the  thinking  of  the  South  is  totally  excluded,  and 
the  thinking  of  the  North  made  supreme.  The  Government 
is  as  much  ours  as  theirs,  and  we  can  not  see  why,  in  a 
matter  that  vitally  concerns  ourselves,  we  shall  be  allowed 
to  do  no  effective  thinking  at  all.  This  is  the  grievance. 
The  Government  is  made  to  take  the  type  of  Northern 
sentiment — it  is  animated,  in  its  relations  to  slavery,  by  the 
Northern  mind,  and  the  South,  henceforward,  is  no  longer 
of  the  Government,  but  only  under  the  Government.  The 
extension  of  slavery,  in  obedience  to  Northern  prejudice,  is 
to  be  for  ever  arrested.  Congress  is  to  treat  it  as  an  evil, 
an  element  of  political  weakness,  and  to  restrain  its  influ- 


State  of  the  Country.  23 

ence  within  the  limits  which  now  circumscribe  it.  All  this 
because  the  North  thinks  so;  while  the  South,  an  equal  party 
to  the  Government,  has  quite  other  thoughts.  And  when 
we  indignantly  complain  of  this  absolute  suppression  of  all 
right  to  think  in  and  through  our  own  Government,  upon 
a  subject  that  involves  our  homes  and  our  firesides,  we  are 
coolly  reminded,  that,  as  long  as  Congress  does  not  usurp 
the  rights  of  our  own  Legislatures,  and  abolish  slavery  on 
our  own  soil,  nor  harbor  our  fugitives  when  they  attempt 
to  escape  from  us,  we  have  reason  to  be  grateful  for  the 
indulgence  accorded  to  us.  The  right  to  breathe  is  as  much 
as  we  should  venture  to  claim.  You  may  exist,  says  free- 
soilism,  as  States,  and  manage  your  slaves  at  home — we  will 
not  abrogate  your  sovereignty.  Your  runaways  we  do  not 
want,  and  we  may  occasionally  send  them  back  to  you. 
But  if  you  think  you  have  a  right  to  be  heard  at  "Washing- 
ton upon  this  great  subject,  it  is  time  that  your  presumption 
should  be  rebuked.  The  North  is  the  thinking  power — the 
soul  of  the  Government.  The  life  of  the  Government  i3 
Northern — not  Southern ;  the  type  to  be  impressed  upon 
all  future  States  is  Northern — not  Southern.  The  North 
becomes  the  United  States,  and  the  South  a  subject 
province. 

Now,  we  say  that  this  is  a  state  of  things  not  to  be  borne. 
A  free  people  can  never  consent  to  their  own  degradation. 
We  say  boldly,  that  the  Government  has  no  more  right  to 
adopt  Northern  thoughts  on  the  subject  of  slavery  than 
those  of  the  South.  It  has  no  more  right  to  presume  that 
they  are  true.  It  has  no  right  to  arbitrate  between  them. 
It  must  treat  them  both  with  equal  respect,  and  give  them 
an  equal  chance.  Upon  no  other  footing  can  the  South,  with 
honor,  remain  in  the  Union.  It  is  not  to  be  endured  for  a 
moment,  that  fifteen  sovereign  States,  embodying,  in  pro- 
portion to  their  population,  as  much  intelligence,  virtue, 
public  spirit  and  patriotism,  as  any  other  people  upon  the 
globe,  should  be  quietly  reduced  to  zero,  in  a  Government 


24  State  of  the  Country. 

which  they  framed  for  their  own  protection  !  We  put  the 
question  again  to  the  North :  If  the  tables  were  turned,  and 
it  was  your  thoughts,  your  life,  your  institutions,  that  the 
G-overnment  was  henceforward  to  discountenance  ;  if  non- 
slaveholding  was  hereafter  to  be  prohibited  in  every  terri- 
tory, and  the  whole  policy  of  the  Government  shaped  by 
the  principle  that  slavery  is  a  blessing,  would  you  endure 
it?  Would  not  your  blood  boil,  and  would  you  not  call 
upon  your  hungry  millions  to  come  to  the  rescue  ?  And 
yet,  this  is  precisely  what  you  have  done  to  us,  and  think 
we  ought  not  to  resist.  You  have  made  us  ciphers,  and 
are  utterly  amazed  that  we  should  claim  to  be  any  thing. 

But,  apart  from  the  degradation  which  it  inflicts  upon 
the  South,  it  may  be  asked,  what  real  injury  will  result 
from  putting  the  Government  in  an  attitude  of  hostility  to 
slavery  ? 

The  answer  is,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  will  certainly  lead 
to  the  extinction  of  the  system.  You  may  destroy  the  oak 
as  effectually  by  girdling  it  as  by  cutting  it  down.  The 
North,  are  well  assured  that  if  they  can  circumscribe  the 
area  of  slavery,  if  they  can  surround  it  with  a  circle  of  non- 
slaveholding  States,  and  prevent  it  from  expanding,  nothing 
more  is  required  to  secure  its  ultimate  abolition.  "  Like 
the  scorpion  girt  by  fire,"  it  will  plunge  its  fangs  into  its 
own  body,  and  perish.  If,  therefore,  the  South  is  not  pre- 
pared to  see  her  institutions  surrounded  by  enemies,  and 
wither  and  decay  under  these  hostile  influences,  if  she 
means  to  cherish  and  protect  them,  it  is  her  bounden  duty 
to  resist  the  revolution  which  threatens  them  with  ruin. 
The  triumph  of  the  principles  which  Mr.  Lincoln  is  pledged 
to  carry  out,  is  the  death-knell  of  slavery. 

In  the  next  place,  the  state  of  the  Northern  mind  which 
has  produced  this  revolution  can  not  be  expected  to  remain 
content  with  its  present  victory.  It  will  hasten  to  other 
triumphs.  The  same  spirit  which  has  prevaricated  with  the 
express  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  and  resorted  to  ex- 


State  of  the  Country.  25 

pedients  to  evade  the  most  sacred  obligations,  will  not  hesi- 
tate for  a  moment  to  change  the  Constitution  when  it  finds 
itself  in  possession  of  the  power.  It  will  only  be  conei* 
tency  to  harmonize  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Government 
with  its  chosen  policy,  the  real  workings  of  its  life.  The 
same  hostility  to  slavery  which  a  numerical  majority  has 
impressed  upon  the  Federal  Legislature,  it  will  not  scruple 
to  impress  upon  the  Federal  Constitution.  If  the  South 
could  be  induced  to  submit  to  Lincoln,  the  time,  we  con- 
fidently predict,  will  come  when  all  grounds  of  controversy 
will  be  removed  in  relation  to  fugitive  slaves,  by  expunging 
the  provision  under  which  they  are  claimed.  The  principle 
is  at  work  and  enthroned  in  power,  whose  inevitable  ten- 
dency is  to  secure  this  result.  Let  us  crush  the  serpent  in 
the  egg. 

From  these  considerations,  it  is  obvious  that  nothing  more 
nor  less  is  at  stake  in  this  controversy  than  the  very  life  of  the 
South.  The  real  question  is,  whether  she  shall  be  politically 
annihilated.  We  are  not  struggling  for  fleeting  and  tempo- 
rary interests.  We  are  struggling  for  our  ycty  being.  And 
none  know  better  than  the  Republican  party  itself,  that  if 
we  submit  to  their  new  type  of  Government,  our  fate  as 
slaveholding  is  for  ever  sealed.  They  have  already  exulted 
in  the  prospect  of  this  glorious  consummation.  They  boast 
that  they  have  laid  a  mine  which  must  ultimately  explode 
in  our  utter  ruin.  They  are  singing  songs  of  victory  in 
advance,  and  are  confidently  anticipating  the  auspicious 
hour  when  they  shall  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  return  to 
the  field  and  bury  the  dead. 

The  sum  of  what  we  have  said  is  briefly  this  :  We  have 
shown  that  the  Constitutional  attitude  of  the  Government 
towards  slavery  is  one  of  absolute  neutrality  or  indifference 
in  relation  to  the  moral  and  political  aspects  of  the  subject. 
We  have  shown,  in  the  next  place,  that  it  is  hereafter  to 
take  an  attitude  of  hostility  ;  that  it  is  to  represent  the 
opinions  and  feelings  exclusively  of  the  North;  that  it  is  to 
4 


26  State  of  the  Country. 

become  the  Government  of  one  section  over  another  ;  and 
that  the  South,  as  South,  is  to  sustain  no  other  relation  to 
it  but  the  duty  of  obedience.. 

This  is  a  thorough  and  radical  revolution.  It  makes 
a  new  Government — it  proposes  new  and  extraordinary 
terms  of  union.  The  old  Government  is  as  completely 
abolished  as  if  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  met 
in  Convention  and  repealed  the  Constitution.  It  is  friv- 
olous to  tell  us  that  the  change  has  been  made  through 
the  forms  of  the  Constitution.  This  is  to  add  insult  to 
injury.  What  signify  forms,  when  the  substance  is 
gone  ?  Of  what  value  is  the  shell,  when  the  kernel  is  ex- 
tracted ?  Rights  are  things,  and  not  words ;  and  when  the 
things  are  taken  from  us,  it  is  no  time  to  be  nibbling  at 
phrases.  If  a  witness  under  oath  designedly  gives  testi- 
mony, which,  though  literally  true,  conveys  a  false  impres- 
sion, is  he  not  guilty  of  perjury  ?  Is  not  his  truth  a  lie  ? 
Temures  kept  the  letter  of  his  promise  to  the  garrison  of 
Sebastia,  that  if  they  would  surrender,  no  blood  should  be 
shed,  but  did  that  save  him  from  the  scandal  of  treachery 
in  burying  them  alive  ?  No  man  objects  to  the  legality  of 
the  process  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election.  The  objection  is  to 
the  legality  of  that  to  which  he  is  elected.  He  has  been 
chosen,  not  to  administer,  but  to  revolutionize,  the  Govern- 
ment. The  very  moment  he  goes  into  office,  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  as  touching  the  great  question 
between  North  and  South,  is  dead.  The  oath  which  makes 
him  President,  makes  a  new  Union.  The  import  of  seces- 
sion is  simply  the  refusal,  on  the  part  of  the  South,  to  be 
parties  to  any  such  Union.  She  has  not  renounced,  and  if 
it  had  been  permitted  to  stand,  she  never  would  have 
renounced,  the  Constitution  which  our  fathers  framed.  She 
would  have  stood  by  it  for  ever.  But,  as  the  North  have 
substantially  abolished  it,  and,  taking  advantage  of  their 
numbers,  have  substituted  another  in  its  place,  which  dooms 
the  South  to  perdition,  surely  she  has  a  right  to  say  she 
will    enter  into  no   such   conspiracy.      The   Government 


State  of  the  Country.  27 

to  which  she  consented  was  a  Government  under  which 
she  might  hope  to  live.  The  new  one  presented  in  its  place 
is  one  under  which  she  can  only  die.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, we  do  not  see  how  any  man  can  question  either 
the  righteousness  or  the  necessity  of  secession.  The  South 
is  shut  up  to  the  duty  of  rejecting  these  new  terms  of  Union. 
Xo  people  on  earth,  without  judicial  infatuation,  can  or- 
ganize a  Government  to  destroy  them.  It  is  too  much  to 
ask  a  man  to  sign  his  own  death-warrant. 

II.  We  wish  to  say  a  few  words  as  to  the  policy  of  the 
slaveholding  States  in  the  present  emergency. 

We  know  it  to  be  the  fixed  determination  of  them  all  not 
to  acquiesce  in  the  principles  which  have  brought  Mr.  Lin- 
col  n  intojpower.    Several  of  them,  however,  have  hesitated — 
and  it  is  a  sign  of  the  scrupulous  integrity  of  the  South  in 
maintaining  her  faith— whether  the  mere  fact  of  his  elec- 
tion, apart  from  any  overt  act  of  the  Government,  is  itself  a 
casus  belli,  and  a  sufficient  reason  for  extreme  measures  of 
resistance.     These  States  have,  also,  clung  to  the  hope  that 
there  would  yet  be  a  returning  sense  of  justice  at  theXorth, 
which.shall  give  them  satisfactory  guarantees  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  their    rights,   and  restore  peace  without    the 
necessity  of  schism.     We  respect  the  motives  which  have 
produced  this  hesitation.     WTe  have  no  sympathy  with  any 
taunting  reflections  upon  the  courage,  magnanimity,  public 
spirit  or  patriotism  of  such  a  Commonwealth  as  Virginia. 
The  mother  of  Washington  is  not  to  be  insulted,  if,  like  her 
great  hero,  she  takes  counsel  of  moderation  and  prudence. 
We  honor,  too,  the  sentiment  which  makes  it  hard  to  give 
up  the  Union.     It  was  a  painful  struggle  to  ourselves  ;  the 
most  painful  struggle  of  our  lives.     There  were  precious 
memories  and  hallowed  associations,  connected  with  a  glo- 
rious history,  to  which  the  heart  can  not  bid  farewell  with- 
out a  pang.     Few  men,  in  all  the  South,  brought  them- 
selves to  pronounce  the  word  Disunion,  without  sadness  of 
heart.     Some  States  have  not  yet  been  able  to  pronounce  it. 


28  State  of  the  Country. 

But  the  tendency  of  events  is  irresistible.  It  is  becoming 
every  clay  clearer,  that  the  people  of  the  North  hate  slavery 
more  than  they  love  the  Union,  and  they  are  developing 
this  spirit  in  a  form  which  must  soon  bring  every  slave- 
holding  State  within  the  ranks  of  secession.  The  evil  day 
may  be  put  off,  but  it  must  come.  The  country  must  be 
divided  into  two  people,  and  the  point  which  we  wish  now 
to  press  upon  the  whole  South  is,  the  importance  of  pre- 
paring, at  once,  for  this  consummation. 

The  slaveholding  interest  is  one,  and  it  seems  to  us  clear 
that  the  slaveholding  States  ought  speedily  to  be  organized 
under  one  general  Government.  United,  they  are  strong 
enough  to  maintain  themselves  against  the  world.  They 
have  the  territory,  the  resources,  the  population,  the  public 
spirit,  the  institutions,  which,  under  a  genial  and  fostering 
Constitution,  would  soon  enable  them  to  become  one  of  the 
first  people  upon  the  globe.  And  if  the  North  shall  have 
wisdom  to  see  her  true  policy,  two  Governments  upon  this 
continent  may  work  out  the  problem  of  human  liberty 
more  successfully  than  one.  Let  the  two  people  maintain 
the  closest  alliance  for  defence  against  a  foreign  foe,  or,  at 
least,  let  them  be  agreed  that  no  European  power  shall  ever 
set  foot  on  American  soil,  and  that  no  type  of  government 
but  the  republican  shall  ever  be  tolerated  here,  and  what 
is  to  hinder  the  fullest  and  freest  developement  of  our  noble 
institutions.  The  separation  changes  nothing  but  the 
external  relations  of  the  two  sections.  Such  a  dismember- 
ment of  the  Union  is  not  like  the  revolution  of  a  State, 
where  the  internal  system  of  government  is  subverted, 
where  laws  are  suspended,  and  where  anarchy  reigns.  The 
country  might  divide  into  two  great  nations  to-morrow, 
without  a  jostle  or  a  jar;  the  Government  of  each  State 
might  go  on  as  regularly  as  before,  the  law  be  as  supreme, 
and  order  as  perfect,  if  the  passions  of  the  people  could  be 
kept  from  getting  the  better  of  their  judgments.  It  is  a 
great  advantage  in  the  form  of  our  Confederacy,  that  a 


State  of  the  Country.  29 

radical  revolution  can  take  place  without  confusion,  and 
without  anarchy.  Every  State  has  a  perfect  internal  system 
at  work  already,  and  that  undergoes  no  change,  except  in 
adjusting  it  to  its  altered  external  relations.  Kow,  given 
this  system  of  States,  with  every  element  of  a  perfect  Gov- 
ernment in  full  aud  undisturbed  operation,  what  is  there  in 
the  circumstance  of  one  Confederacy  of  divided  interests,  that 
shall  secure  a  freer  and  safer  developement  than  tico  < 
federacies,  each  representing  an  undivided  interest?  Are 
not  two  homogeneous  Unions  stronger  than  one  that  is 
heterogeneous?  Should  not  the  life  of  a  Government 
be  one  ?  "We  do  not  see,  therefore,  that  any  thing  will  be 
lost  to  freedom  by  the  union  of  the  South  under  a  separate 
Government.  She  will  carry  into  it  every  institution 
that  she  had  before — her  State  Constitutions,  her  Legis- 
latures, her  Courts  of  Justice,  her  halls  of  learning — 
every  thing  that  she  now  possesses.  She  will  put  these 
precious  interests  under  a  Government  embodying  every 
principle  which  gave  value  to  the  old  one,  and  amply 
adequate  to  protect  them.  What  will  she  lose  of  real  free- 
dom? We  confess  that  we  can  not  understand  the  decla- 
mation, that  with  the  American  Union,  American  institu- 
tions are  gone.  Each  section  of  the  Union  will  preserve 
them  and  cherish  them.  Every  principle  that  has  ever 
made  us  glorious,  and  made  our  Government  a  wonder, 
will  abide  with  us.  The  sections,  separately,  will  not  be  as 
formidable  to  foreign  powers  as  before.  That  is  all.  But 
each  section  will  be  strong  enough  to  protect  itself,  and 
both  together  can  save  this  continent  for  republicanism 
for  ever. 

Indeed,  it  is  likely  that  both  Governments  will  be  purer, 
in  consequence  of  their  mutual  rivalry,  and  the  diminution 
of  the  extent  of  their  patronage.  They  will  both  cherish 
intensely  the  American  feeling,  both  maintain  the  pride  of 
American  character,  and  both  try  to  make  their  Govern- 
ments at  home  what  they  would  desire  to  have  them  appear 


30  State  of  the   Country. 

to  be  abroad.  Once  take  away  all  pretext  for  meddling 
with  one  another's  peculiar  interests,  and  we  do  not  see  but 
that  the  magnificent  visions  of  glory,  which  our  imagina- 
tions have  delighted  to  picture  as  the  destiny  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race  on  this  North  American  continent,  may  yet  be 
fully  realized.  They  never  can  be,  if  we  continue  together, 
to  bite  and  devour  one  another. 

But,  whether  it  be  for  weal  or  woe,  the  South  has  no  elec- 
tion. She  is  driven  to  the  wall,  and  the  only  question  is, 
will  she  take  care  of  herself  in  time  ?  The  sooner  she  can 
organize  a  general  Government,  the  better.  That  will  be 
a  centre  of  unity,  and,  once  combined,  we  are  safe. 

We  can  not  close  without  saying  a  few  words  to  the 
people  of  the  North  as  to  the  policy  which  it  becomes  them 
to  pursue.  The  whole  question  of  peace  or  war  is  in  their 
hands.  The  South  is  simply  standing  on  the  defensive, 
and  has  no  notion  of  abandoning  that  attitude.  Let  the 
Northern  people,  then,  seriously  consider,  and  consider  in 
the  fear  of  God,  how,  under  present  circumstances,  they 
can  best  conserve  those  great  interests  of  freedom,  of 
religion,  and  of  order,  which  are  equally  dear  to  us  both, 
and  which  they  can  fearfully  jeopard.  If  their  counsels 
incline  to  peace,  the  most  friendly  relations  can  speedily  be 
restored,  and  the  most  favorable  treaties  entered  into.  We 
should  feel  ourselves  the  joint  possessors  of  the  continent, 
and  should  be  drawn  together  by  ties  which  unite  no  other 
people.  We  could,  indeed,  realize  all  the  advantages  of 
the  Union,  without  any  of  its  inconveniences.  The  cause 
of  human  liberty  would  not  even  be  retarded,  if  the  North 
can  rise  to  a  level  with  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  their  thoughts  incline  to  war,  we 
solemnly  ask  them  what  they  expect  to  gain?  What 
interest  will  be  promoted  ?  What  end,  worthy  of  a  great 
people,  will  they  be  able  to  secure  ?  They  may  gratify  their 
bad  passions,  they  may  try  to  wreak  their  resentment  upon 
the  seceding  States,  and  they  may  inflict  a  large  amount  of 


State  of  the  Country.  31 

injury,  disaster  and  suffering.  But  what  have  they  gained? 
Shall  a  free  people  be  governed  by  their  passions  ?  Sup- 
pose they  should  conquer  us,  what  will  they  do  with  us  ? 
How  will  they  hold  us  in  subjection?  How  many  gar- 
risons, and  how  many  men,  and  how  much  treasure,  will 
it  take  to  keep  the  South  in  order  as  a  conquered  province  ? 
and  where  are  these  resources  to  come  from?  After  they 
have  subdued  as,  the  hardest  part  of  their  task  will  remain. 
They  will  have  the  wolf  by  the  ears. 

But,  upon  what  grounds  do  they  hope  to  conquer  us  ? 
They  know  us  well — they  know  our  numbers — they  know 
our  spirit,  and  they  know  the  value  which  we  set  upon  our 
homes  and  firesides.  TTe  have  fought  for  the  glory  of  the 
Union,  and  the  world  admired  us.  but  it  was  not  such  fighting 
as  we  shall  do  for  our  wives,  our  children,  and  our  sacred 
honor.  The  very  women  of  the  South,  like  the  Spartan 
matrons,  will  take  hold  of  shield  and  buckler,  and  our  boys 
at  school  will  £0  to  the  field  in  all  the  determination  of 
disciplined  valor.  Conquered  we  can  never  be.  It  would 
be  madness  to  attempt  it ;  and  after  years  of  blood  and 
slaughter,  the  parties  would  be  just  where  they  began, 
except  that  they  would  have  learned  to  hate  one  another 
with  an  intensity  of  hatred  equalled  only  in  hell.  Freedom 
would  sutler,  religion  would  suffer,  learning  would  suffer, 
every  human  interest  would  suffer,  from  such  a  war.  But 
upon  whose  head  would  fall  the  responsibility  ?  There  can 
be  but  one  answer.  TTe  solemnly  believe  that  the  South 
will  be  guiltless  before  the  eyes  of  the  Judge  of  all  the 
earth.     She  has  stood  in  her  lot,  and  resisted  aggression. 

If  the  Xorth  could  rise  to  the  dignity  of  their  present 
calling,  this  country  would  present  to  the  world  a  spectacle 
of  unparalleled  grandeur.  It  would  show  how  deeply 
the  love  of  liberty  and  the  influence  of  religion  are  rooted 
in  our  people,  when  a  great  empire  can  be  divided  without 
confusion,  war,  or  disorder.  Two  great  people  united 
under  one  government  differ  upon  a  question  of  vital  im- 


32  State  of  the  Country. 

-portance  to  one.  Neither  can  conscientiously  give  way. 
In  the  magnanimity  of  their  souls,  they  say,  let  there  be 
no  strife  between  us,  for  we  are  brethren.  The  land  is 
broad  enough  for  us  both.  Let  us  part  in  peace,  let  us 
divide  our  common  inheritance,  adjust  our  common  obli- 
gations, and,  preserving,  as  a  sacred  treasure,  our  com- 
mon principles,  let  each  set  up  for  himself,  and  let  the 
Lord  bless  us  both.  A  course  like  this,  heroic,  sublime, 
glorious,  would  be  something  altogether  unexampled  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  It  would  be  the  wonder  and 
astonishment  of  the  nations.  It  would  do  more  to  com- 
mand for  American  institutions  the  homage  and  respect  of 
mankind,  than  all  the  armies  and  fleets  of  the  Eepublic. 
It  would  be  a  victory  more  august  and  imposing  than  any 
which  can  be  achieved  by  the  thunder  of  cannon  and  the 
shock  of  battle. 

Peace  is  the  policy  of  both  North  and  South.  Let  peace 
prevail,  and  nothing  really  valuable  is  lost.  To  save  the 
Union  is  impossible.  The  thing  for  Christian  men  and 
patriots  to  aim  at  now,  is  to  save  the  country  from  war. 
That  will  be  a  scourge  and  a  curse.  But  the  South  will 
emerge  from  it  free  as  she  was  before.  She  is  the  invaded 
party,  and  her  institutions  are  likely  to  gain  strength  from 
the  conflict.  Can  the  North,  as  the  invading  party,  be 
assured  that  sl*e  will  not  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  military 
despot  ?  The  whole  question  is  with  her,  and  we  calmly 
await  her  decision.  We  prefer  peace — but  if  war  must 
come,  we  are  prepared  to  meet  it  with  unshaken  confidence 
in  the  God  of  battles.  We  lament  the  wide-spread  mischief 
it  will  do,  the  arrest  it  will  put  upon  every  holy  enterprise 
of  the  Church,  and  upon  all  the  interests  of  life ;  but  the 
South  can  boldly  say  to  the  bleeding,  distracted  country, 

"Shake  not  thy  gory  locks  at  me; 
Thou  canst  not  say  I  did  it." 


